"Just zis Guy, you know?" <
[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 14 Jan 2003 19:01:53 +0000, Ace Agincourt <agincourt1.don'
[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >I can understand your fury. However, it is not the woman's fault that she was punished so
> >leniently, it was the court's fault, or, indeed, the entire British legal system's fault.
>
> Indeed. I have written to my MP and to the Secretary of State for Transport - and a fat lot of
> good it will do.
>
> >The cagers you post to in uk.tosspot don't give a stuff about one 17 year old's life, and they'll
> >simply rejoice at the news that one of their own got off so lightly.
>
> Maybe. I see some evidence that one or two of them have thought about
> it. Paul "Mr Safety" Smith thinks that overtaking a cyclist so close he crashes and dies is but a
> minor thing, of course.
>
> >It's only when cagers get 5 years to life for causing death by careless driving that they'll
> >think twice before making such dangerous overtaking manoeuvers. £135 plus £60 costs would seem
> >lenient for the careless cager who ran me down bike while I was riding in a cycle lane.
>
> My view is that where a driver kills someone through negligent drivintg there should be an
> automatic minimum twelve month ban, training course and extended retest (cost to driver) plus a
> fine of (as a guide) the Inland Revenue taxable benefit value fo the car they were driving at
> the time.
>
> The courts would be free to increase this to a maximum of (say) 15 years in prison, unlimited ban,
> unlimited fine. And of course CUT THEIR GOOLIES OFF because it's the only language these people
> understand.
>
> Guy
> ===
> ** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony.
http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and
> dynamic DNS permitting)
> NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
> work. Apologies.
There appears to be a slight oversight when these cases are considered. The car driver is in control
of a machine that can very effectively kill if used incorrectly. As a result of this, it should be
their total responsibility to ensure they do not use it to kill, and *no excuse* (except severe,
unavoidable mechanical failure)should be sufficient to alleviate that responsibility. If one expects
to be able to get away with taking a life 'by accident' whilst in control of one of these machines,
then they should not be allowed behind the wheel. I hereby propose that as part of the driving test
henceforth, a contract should be signed, in advance, by the candidates, in which they admit
responsibility and liability for any accident involving either cyclists or pedestrians, after all,
they are the ones in control of the *potential* death machine, right ? Then, if they cause a fatal
injury whilst in control of their machine, CUT THEIR GOOLIES OFF!!...over to you Guy ;-)
Dave
